Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[CoccoBill]

I explained that in vivid detail. If you're going to choose to ignore certain information that doesn't fit your argument....well then I can see why you're wrong so much.

Yes, 1 of the 4 points was maybe slightly off. That does not a ridiculous caricature make. In yours or Trump's case it'd make for an exceptionally accurate comment.

A completely baseless and incendiary accusation. Does that make you feel better to say that? Do you feel like a big boy now?

It was your interpretation that the definition describes someone who is a blind, unthinking Trump-apologist. You agreed with 3 out of the 4 points that made that definition. Maybe you shouldn't get so butthurt over making logical observations of your words. And yes, this also is a joke.

It's not news to me. What also shouldn't be news is that i flat out refuse to go down that rabbit hole. I'm defining intelligence as "the ability to acquire skills and knowledge". In that regard, Trump has an extremely high aptitude. There's no plausible way he could be where he is, if he didn't possess an extremely high level of intelligence.

I've noticed you have trouble with word definitions every time it's convenient to your case.

Furthermore, he can push a button on his desk and, within seconds, have a dozen experts on any subject ready to educate him on anything he could ever need or want to know. In that context, he's the smartest person on the planet.

Have you looked at his cabinet? (a joke)
Wouldn't anyone then be the smartest in that position? (not a joke)

You summed it up pretty well in the last paragraph of post #173. You believe that Trump is incompetent as a politician, lacks understanding of the issues, communicates poorly, and that his communication skills demonstrate below average cognition. You believe all this despite his status as the living icon of business success and his rising to a political office that's only ever been held by 45 men in the entirety of history. And when challenged on WHY you think this...your response thus far has been "duh everything". And you've defended this position by denigrating and disparaging any other opposing view as symptomatic of being a blind, unthinking, Trump-apologist.

No, I didn't. I listed things that might convince me on those issues, as of now I'm undecided as should any sane person be based on the available evidence, which is basically all sketchy, anecdotal or hearsay. I have no idea if he's competent as a politician, but most things he say and how he acts don't instill confidence in me. He's shown a lack of understanding over numerous issues. He communicates poorly, unless you're using elementary school grading. He certainly has nailed slogans and branding, as well as having a confident presence, but he has a lot to improve on clarity and diplomatic skills.

Again, his CPAC speech from just this week is a prime example of exactly what you're looking for. It's been mentioned a half dozen times now, and you're still acting like the question hasn't been answered.

Looks to me like it could be any of his campaign rallies. If you consider rambling enthusiastically about his favorite issues signs of intelligence, maybe we should just drop this. I didn't mean by "intelligent" your definition of "being able to acquire skills and knowledge", a hamster would qualify those.

No, that pretty much IS your point. And if you were just honest about that, it would be harder to criticize you. Instead you've decided that anyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking, blind, Trump fan-boy.

My point was that people supporting Trump are more deeply invested in their beliefs, they have more to lose by being proven wrong than those who are against him. Related to those two I consider myself to be in a 3rd group, the outside observers, who have far less skin in the game. You're insistence to not budging one inch and mustering all your energy to ridicule anyone who might in any way question the foundations your beliefs are built on top of IMO demonstrates I'm correct. This is not about my opinions, and my point doesn't change one bit regardless of what they are.

The fact that your thinking starts with the premise that he's "a stupid douche" pretty much PROVES the existence of your echo chamber.

You must think labeling all differing opinions as echo chamber talk must feel convincing to you. It's rare to see that kind of pathos supporting anyone, don't you at all think it's peculiar you're so offended if someone ridicules your supreme leader? I sort of admire the passion though, I can't fathom ever supporting any political figure so strongly, I feel a vast majority of them are either corrupt, stupid douches or both, especially the ones who clearly got to their position just by being famous, such as ex-athletes, actors etc.

Two pages of a tax return should not convince you of much.

Ikr

Dude.....even the most generous estimates of Trump's 'head start' are no higher than $200 million. He's currently worth 20x to 50x that. The rate of return he would have to earn in order to achieve even the most conservative estimates of his net worth is absolutely phenomenal. Your claim is absurd. The math simply doesn't work.

Donald Trump's self-described net worth was $200 million in 1982. If he invested that money in the S&P 500, he'd be worth about $8.3 billion today. He claims his net worth is $8.7 billion.

this is yet another example of you discounting Trump's abilities, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, just to feed your own echo chamber. Snap out of it!!

We have a very different understanding of irrefutable evidence, but none of this is about my opinion, or me discounting his abilities. All of this is just demonstrating your core beliefs about him aren't as airtight as you make it sound, and you seem to be changing the subject or ignoring it every time it happens. I don't claim he's not a successful businessman, I just don't have the rock hard unquestioning faith that he is as you do.

Are you kidding me?? What do you call having every media outlet in the known universe crawl up your ass for a year and half during a presidential campaign?? YOu make it sound like he just filled out a form and kept his fingers crossed.

What I don't call it is anything resembling an aptitude test, or an exam on political history, foreign and domestic policy or economics. I would rather call it a publicity tour riling up people with hate towards his opposition, the media and promises to bring back obsolete jobs and values.

because he was doing just fine, better even, with the old rules. There's maybe a .0000000367% chance I could buy into this line of thinking if Trump was like....45 years old. But he's not. He's not going to live very long after he's President. Why try and fuck with the game if you're never going to get to play again??

You mean you think he was doing just fine, you don't know that. You know absolutely nothing about his financial situation, his motivations, his aspirations, whether he actually wanted to be the president, does he see himself as aging and about to retire, none of that. You just have a base assumption that he's filthy rich, and everything else follows. And don't get me wrong, you absolutely have the right to do that, and I'm not really even criticizing you, just observing and being mildly amused.

No, my claim was that his personal motivation is diminished by the fact that he has no practical way to enjoy further gains other than the satisfaction of the achievement itself. If someone is extraordinarily driven, and reaches that point, they diversify and seek new challenges in other arenas.....like politics.

That's possible, but it's also possible that he either isn't doing that well financially, or that he definitely still has motivation to gain more wealth and might see running or being the POTUS as also a lucrative deal. And again, these are not my opinions, we possibly will never find out what the real deal is, but only one of us is 100% convinced at the moment.

So you're not denying that your position is that Trump went to all the trouble, stress, and triple-digit million dollar expense just so he could sell hotel rooms to secret service agents and foreign entourages.

I am. The only denying that's going on is you with even the possibility of that being within the realm of possibilities. If you want my opinion (you should ask rather than put words in my mouth if you do), I'd say there at least a low 2-digit chance that the prospect might have had some influence on his decision.

How many charitable foundations are named after you Sir?

Roughly the same amount as DJ:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...dation-n822636

I feel like I've cited extensive facts that are NOT questionable or anecdotal. If you dont' understand them, just ask, and I'll be glad to clarify.

Well feelings are sadly not what I'm looking for. I'll be sure to understand if there's something I don't understand, thanks.

Well, if it ever comes out that Trump is not really rich, not really successful, and not really smart, I guess you'll see. Until then you can believe what you want. In the meantime, I'll hang out here in reality where the man OBVIOUSLY has his shit together.

Good luck with that.

Probably a doctored photo, possibly a joke in poor taste, or maybe even democrats in disguise. Even if it is authentic, I don't believe this photo represents even a slim minority of Trump supporters. However, the photo that I posted most definitely represents a large majority of Trump detractors.

Lol. I had no problem believing people in both the photos were genuine. Isn't it fascinating to you how you without hesitation completely dismiss one of them while having no qualms about the other? Aren't you curious what makes you react like that to two random photos off the net?

They're fraudulent. Either that, or ignorant. Possibly both. I say that because the word "racist" is something they are co-opting for shock value and to morally blackmail the other side. I don't believe that any of Trump's policies seek to denigrate or oppress any ethnic group. The examples that have been cited require some logical somersaults. Like the travel-pause that singled out a half dozen notably dangerous countries. To conclude a racist motivation here, you have to do logical somersaults to convince yourself that something that only affects <10% of the muslim population is an attack on ALL muslims. You'd have to ignore the national security concerns cited by virtually every international intelligence agency at our disposal. And you'd have to WANT to believe that Trump is just an evil, islam-hating, racist, xenophobic piece of shit.

Nowadays being racist doesn't just mean you're KKK, it doesn't require hatred or ill will towards other races. It just means preferential treatment, treating a person differently just based on their skin color. Remember when you joined this board we had this discussion, and at the end you conceded that fine, maybe you are racist if that's the definition? Yeah, by that same metric I don't see it such a leap to call him racist. Not KKK level, perhaps more like grumpy grandpa level. Either way, I find it far far less likely that he is the least racist person anyone's ever met.

I would never deny someone's right to protest. However, the folks in the picture I posted are not protesting. They're simply expressing rage with irrational behavior. It's not the same thing.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're not protesting.

[Poopadoop]

You mean you think he was doing just fine, you don't know that. You know absolutely nothing about his financial situation, his motivations, his aspirations, whether he actually wanted to be the president, does he see himself as aging and about to retire, none of that. You just have a base assumption that he's filthy rich, and everything else follows.

Good point. This whole argument that he can't be corrupt because he's already so rich and doesn't need any more money is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've heard in a while, even in this thread. It's like saying you expect everyone to just stop trying to amass wealth once they reach a saturation point. Like it's never occurred to you (banana) that the thing he finds rewarding isn't having the money it's making more and more of it.

[BananaStand]

Good point. This whole argument that he can't be corrupt because he's already so rich and doesn't need any more money is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've heard in a while, even in this thread. It's like saying you expect everyone to just stop trying to amass wealth once they reach a saturation point. Like it's never occurred to you (banana) that the thing he finds rewarding isn't having the money it's making more and more of it.

How the fuck is running for president a practical way to amass wealth. Tax breaks? Fuck off. The guy has amassed BILLIONS without holding office. He would be much better off to just keep doing what he's doing.

Furthermore, he's already announced his re-election campaign. That means he intends to put his profit-making endeavors on hold for 8 years. He's 71 fucking years old. And according to you, he's a big mac away from cardiac arrest. What percentage of his remaining life is 8 years!! How does that logic even work? How does a person give up their job for more than half their remaining life and somehow make MORE money???

[Poopadoop]

How the fuck is running for president a practical way to amass wealth. Tax breaks? Fuck off. The guy has amassed BILLIONS without holding office. He would be much better off to just keep doing what he's doing.

Furthermore, he's already announced his re-election campaign. That means he intends to put his profit-making endeavors on hold for 8 years. He's 71 fucking years old. And according to you, he's a big mac away from cardiac arrest. What percentage of his remaining life is 8 years!! How does that logic even work? How does a person give up their job for more than half their remaining life and somehow make MORE money???

Are you really this dumb? You don't see how someone could profit from the office of the president apart from giving themselves a tax break? You think that's the limit of corruption?

And why do you insist he's given up his other business ventures? Did you really buy that press conference charade where they showed mounds of blank pages as proof he was divesting his interests? Every time he and his staff go to Mar a Lago, he personally profits from it. Every time a foreign diplomat stays in his hotel, he profits. Where is the evidence he's given up making money as a businessman?

But I guess we're meant to believe that being a corrupt businessman makes him an honest president. And then you wonder why people accuse you of being a kool-aid drinker.

[BananaStand]

Are you really this dumb? You don't see how someone could profit from the office of the president apart from giving themselves a tax break? You think that's the limit of corruption?

Anything else would be a sensational and incendiary accusation based on absolutely partisan conjecture. If you're entertaining this as a real possibility, and using it to color your opinion of Trump then go right ahead. But there is a term for that. It's called being an ass-hole.

And why do you insist he's given up his other business ventures?

There aren't enough hours in the day to be president, AND run a multi-billion dollar empire. He's almost never alone. There's a camera in his face 18 hours a day. Every email and phone call he makes is seen and heard by a dozen different people. The guy can't have a phone call with the Mexican president without it leaking all over the press 30 minutes later. If the guy was making a habit of doing Trump business on the people's time....we'd know about it.

Every time he and his staff go to Mar a Lago, he personally profits from it. Every time a foreign diplomat stays in his hotel, he profits. Where is the evidence he's given up making money as a businessman?

This presumes that those hotel rooms would otherwise be unsold. That's a totally erroneous presumption.

EDIT: You might not know this but American hotels have something called "the government rate". Anyone affiliated in any way with government operations has access to this privilege. I once worked for a private company that was a contractor for the department of defense. My employee ID had a bunch of fine print on it, some of which allowed me access to this privilege. A $135/night room costs $80 with the government rate. It doesn't even matter if I'm travelling for business or pleasure. Just show the card, get the discount.

I'm positive that everyone in Trump's entourage has one of these cards.

It's amazing to me that you want to impugn Trump's corporate savvy while simultaneously your own business acumen has led you to believe that a hotel can make more money, by selling the same room, to different people, at a lower price.

[Poopadoop]

Anything else would be a sensational and incendiary accusation based on absolutely partisan conjecture. If you're entertaining this as a real possibility, and using it to color your opinion of Trump then go right ahead. But there is a term for that. It's called being an ass-hole.

No, you're the one being sensational by just assuming there's no way he could ever be corrupt, and getting all spazzy at anyone who even dares to suggest its even remotely possible the office could be abused if someone were so inclined.

He's almost never alone. There's a camera in his face 18 hours a day.

Hyperbananalism at its finest.

Every email and phone call he makes is seen and heard by a dozen different people. The guy can't have a phone call with the Mexican president without it leaking all over the press 30 minutes later. If the guy was making a habit of doing Trump business on the people's time....we'd know about it.

So ya if he's mixed up with anything shady his partner in crime is going to leak it. Fuck off.

This presumes that those hotel rooms would otherwise be unsold. That's a totally erroneous presumption.

How do you know?

It's amazing to me that you want to impugn Trump's corporate savvy while simultaneously your own business acumen has led you to believe that a hotel can make more money, by selling the same room, to different people, at a lower price.

Your whole premise is that the hotel is turning away full-price customers to give discount rates to Trump and his entourage. No evidence for that, but it fits your narrative. Typical bananalogic.

[BananaStand]

I'm only gonna do this one more time. You've gone off the rails to the point where you're either being deliberately stubborn, or monumentally stupid. Either way, continuing to argue with you will be fruitless.

Yes, 1 of the 4 points was maybe slightly off. That does not a ridiculous caricature make. In yours or Trump's case it'd make for an exceptionally accurate comment.

It's really not a question of scoring. On the 3 of 4 points where you believe you scored...you didn't. That's because you described my positions as fanatical. That's completely inaccurate. I've cited Trumps massive wealth and widely regarded success as evidence of his competence. If you show me video footage of Trump robbing banks, or a credible psychological test that concludes his IQ is 60, then I will stand corrected. In the meantime, if you want to change my mind, you're going to have to show me a FACT that's more compelling than a massive fortune, the respect of his peers, and a successful political ascension in the midst of incredible adversarial scrutiny.

I've noticed you have trouble with word definitions every time it's convenient to your case.

The dictionary and I are on the same side here. I'd like to know why you presume to redefine words every time its convenient to your case.

Have you looked at his cabinet? (a joke)

Are you making a joke? If so, it's not funny. Or are you saying that his cabinet members are a joke? If so, you've left the realm of adult conversation. Bye.

Wouldn't anyone then be the smartest in that position? (not a joke)

Yes. I've told this story before, but maybe you haven't heard it. The Chicago Tribune once called Henry Ford "ignorant", and Ford sued for slander. In court, the Tribune's lawyer asked Ford a bunch of trivia questions that Ford couldn't answer. Finally Ford used the same "i can push a button" argument that I did. He won.....and was awarded compensatory damages of six cents.

No, I didn't. I listed things that might convince me on those issues, as of now I'm undecided as should any sane person be based on the available evidence, which is basically all sketchy, anecdotal or hearsay.

The value of his real-estate portfolio is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. His title, President of the United States, is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. So I really don't know how you can be undecided regarding Trump's level of success, or his political talents.

I have no idea if he's competent as a politician,

He is. You can disagree with him on policy. You can criticize him for decisions that you think are wrong. You can ask questions and demand answers. You can challenge those answers. You can hold him accountable for mistakes, or failures. And you SHOULD do all of these things. But what you should not do, is question his competency. You can't BE president, without being fit for the job. You can't get there. Look how many tremendously qualified people have tried and failed.

Looks to me like it could be any of his campaign rallies.

Speculate for me then....why was the crowd so enthusiastic? When Trump was running campaign rallies, this particular crowd rejected him. CPAC is the base of the republican base. It's the people that wanna suck Mitt Romney's jock strap. They've rejected Trump's campaign rally rhetoric. So logically....that should tell you that the content of this speech is alot more substantial than campaign rally rhetoric.

My point was that people supporting Trump are more deeply invested in their beliefs, they have more to lose by being proven wrong than those who are against him.

False. In fact the opposite is true. Trump is pretty much an experiment. He's unique in significant ways. If it doesn't work out, conservatives can just go back to their Jeb Bush-types and hold their own. On the other hand, democrats have bet everything on Trump being a failure. They are counting on resignation or impeachment. They lost this election because they had no message. That hasn't changed. The only message they seem to have is "Trump is a _______-ist"

You're insistence to not budging one inch and mustering all your energy to ridicule anyone who might in any way question the foundations your beliefs are built on top of IMO demonstrates I'm correct.

I am completely open to budging an inch. Possibly even a foot. Or a mile. I've presented the reasons that support my current position. If I am to budge, then I need to something more compelling than what I already have. Convince me? You haven't even attempted to debate any of these issues. You just want to ridicule me for having confidence in the authenticity of my perceptions.

You must think labeling all differing opinions as echo chamber talk must feel convincing to you. It's rare to see that kind of pathos supporting anyone, don't you at all think it's peculiar you're so offended if someone ridicules your supreme leader?

if it's not echo-chamber talk, then what else could it be? Your opinions ignore known truths. Furthermore, your description of my "pathos" is entirely erroneous. Supreme leader??? I'm not delusional. If you want to ridicule Trump....fine. Jokes are funny, as long as their jokes. But you're not joking. You really believe it's possible that the man is stupid, broke, and likely a traitor. The basis of your political thought process....is a joke.

If you want to criticize Trump on policy....go ahead. That's cool. Even I don't think the guy has ALL the answers. I'd say his response to the school shooting issue has been pretty terrible.

You've left the realm of sanity if you think I worship Trump like some kind of cult leader.

Donald Trump's self-described net worth was $200 million in 1982. If he invested that money in the S&P 500, he'd be worth about $8.3 billion today. He claims his net worth is $8.7 billion

.
Your math is completely wrong. I did the math for Boost a while back. If you started with 200 million, earned 10% per year, and only paid capital gains taxes, you would have about 4 point something billion after 40 years. You've calculated double that number in 36 years. Not possible.

The S&P 500 didn't make 10%. And Trump probably paid some non-zero amount of business profits and personal income tax (much higher rate than capital gains). Oh, and I'm also pretty sure that Trump spent some money over the last 40 years. Fast food isn't free.

So ignore Trump for a minute and ask an objective 3rd party. Ask two even. Forbes or Bloomberg both estimate Trump's net worth around 4 billion. To reach that number, with a $200 million head start, you have to far exceed the market. And you have to do it consistently, over the long term. How can an ignoramus do that?

I don't claim he's not a successful businessman, I just don't have the rock hard unquestioning faith that he is as you do.

Who says it's unquestioning?? Trump says he's rich. I checked and it turns out that other, independent firms who specialize in estimate the wealth of private businessmen agree that Trump is filthy fucking rich.

I haven't done any appraisals myself, but I tend to believe reports of easily verifiable information. So if it's reported that Trump is the registered owner of billions of dollars in real estate, I believe it. The next logical question is "how could a man accumulate such a portfolio of assets?" The answer is pretty flattering for Trump.

What I don't call it is anything resembling an aptitude test, or an exam on political history, foreign and domestic policy or economics.

Easily the most ignorant thing you've said in this thread. And that's saying something.

You mean you think he was doing just fine, you don't know that

I know, for a fact, he owns billions of dollars of tangible assets. He's really not worried where his next steak is coming from.

You know absolutely nothing about his financial situation, his motivations, his aspirations, whether he actually wanted to be the president, does he see himself as aging and about to retire, none of that. You just have a base assumption that he's filthy rich, and everything else follows. And don't get me wrong, you absolutely have the right to do that, and I'm not really even criticizing you, just observing and being mildly amused.

It's just occurred to me that you live in a place where its entirely possible that you've never interacted with a highly successful capitalist.

That's possible, but it's also possible that he either isn't doing that well financially, or that he definitely still has motivation to gain more wealth and might see running or being the POTUS as also a lucrative deal. And again, these are not my opinions, we possibly will never find out what the real deal is, but only one of us is 100% convinced at the moment.

I'm not 100% convinced of anything. I just heavily heavily heavily discount the absurd. If it comes out some day that Trump wrote "Dear Diary, today I decided I could pay less taxes if I just became President and changed the law" then we can come back to this thread and I'll stand corrected. In the meantime, I'm gonna take YOUR advice and embrace Occam's razor.

Trump became president for the same reason all 44 of his predecessors did. Personal ambition and patriotism.

Lol. I had no problem believing people in both the photos were genuine. Isn't it fascinating to you how you without hesitation completely dismiss one of them while having no qualms about the other? Aren't you curious what makes you react like that to two random photos off the net?

First of all, 'complete dismissal' is a gross mischaracterization of my reaction.

One picture looks strange to me. Where I come from, five people walking around in shirts saying "let's get rid of the negros" would not be surrounded by enthusiastic, smiling, cheering people. Maybe I just don't get the south. That's entirely possible. Some fucked up shit goes on down there. On the other hand, the picture I posted is stuff that I've seen with my own eyeballs.

So no, I'm not curious what makes me react like that. I think I have a very good understanding of why I had differing reactions, and I've just explained it. That's the kind of thought process a person has when they aren't blinded by unquestioning faith.

Nowadays being racist doesn't just mean you're KKK,

Fuck this game. You don't get to play with the definition of words. Racist implies hatred and animus. Not "grumpy grandpa" stuff. That's why being labeled a racist is one of the worst things that can happen to a politician or celebrity. Weaponizing that is wrong wrong wrong.

When those protesters carry signs demanding the removal of a politician for racist ideology, they're not being honest. They're not outraged about "grumpy grandpa" stuff. But Trump isn't guilty of anything worse. So what's with the signs??

See....this is the kind of thought process you have when you don't approach things with unquestioning faith.

[CoccoBill]

I'm only gonna do this one more time. You've gone off the rails to the point where you're either being deliberately stubborn, or monumentally stupid. Either way, continuing to argue with you will be fruitless.

Read again my original post. My point was all along to point out Trump supporters are more invested in their beliefs. If they turn out to be wrong, they may have voted for a bigoted corrupt charlatan. If Trump's opposers turn out to be wrong, they have to face the humiliation of being wrong but things are actually ok. See the difference? The fact that for several hundred lines now you've been trying to switch this into just me being biased and not seeing the greatness of his ways are to me proof of my point.

The value of his real-estate portfolio is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. His title, President of the United States, is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. So I really don't know how you can be undecided regarding Trump's level of success, or his political talents.

Again, this isn't about my level of decidedness, it's about yours. So what is the value of his real-estate portfolio and how much debt does he and the companies have? Surely you know the exact numbers since you're so convinced.

Speculate for me then....why was the crowd so enthusiastic? When Trump was running campaign rallies, this particular crowd rejected him. CPAC is the base of the republican base. It's the people that wanna suck Mitt Romney's jock strap. They've rejected Trump's campaign rally rhetoric. So logically....that should tell you that the content of this speech is alot more substantial than campaign rally rhetoric.

Nice but sadly unsuccessful attempt to again divert the conversation. You were asked which parts in it showed signs of intelligence, though I already decided to drop this issue, since we clearly differ on the definition of intelligence.

False. In fact the opposite is true. Trump is pretty much an experiment. He's unique in significant ways. If it doesn't work out, conservatives can just go back to their Jeb Bush-types and hold their own. On the other hand, democrats have bet everything on Trump being a failure. They are counting on resignation or impeachment. They lost this election because they had no message. That hasn't changed. The only message they seem to have is "Trump is a _______-ist"

Why are you switching the context to being about republican and democrat politicians, when we were talking about voters? You would not be trying to deliberately divert the topic, would you?

I am completely open to budging an inch. Possibly even a foot. Or a mile. I've presented the reasons that support my current position. If I am to budge, then I need to something more compelling than what I already have. Convince me? You haven't even attempted to debate any of these issues. You just want to ridicule me for having confidence in the authenticity of my perceptions.

You may be, it just doesn't look like that to me. And no I haven't tried to debate on the issues other than point out places where your supposed titanium alloy evidences have been less than airtight. It truly hasn't been about ridicule though, sorry if it has seemed that way. At least on a conscious level I've been doing this bona fide.

if it's not echo-chamber talk, then what else could it be? Your opinions ignore known truths. Furthermore, your description of my "pathos" is entirely erroneous. Supreme leader??? I'm not delusional. If you want to ridicule Trump....fine. Jokes are funny, as long as their jokes. But you're not joking. You really believe it's possible that the man is stupid, broke, and likely a traitor. The basis of your political thought process....is a joke.

Yes, this is where our opinions differ. I don't have a deep emotional or economic investment in Trump, so I can perhaps more freely entertain all possible options, not only the ones that cement my beliefs. You refuse to think it's possible he could have gotten this far by accident, fluke or questionable means, I get that. Meanwhile, for an outside observer, his continuous gaffes, the accusations of meddling and obstruction, the language he uses, the accusations of pretty much everyone round him calling him an idiot and on and on, while not being damning and convincing evidence, should at least make one wonder what the real deal is. If the only thought entering someone's mind in face of all that is that they are all 100% fake news, my diagnosis is a mild case of delusional LALALALAICANTHEARYOU and I'd prescribe one pill of healthy skepticism twice a day.

Your math is completely wrong. I did the math for Boost a while back. If you started with 200 million, earned 10% per year, and only paid capital gains taxes, you would have about 4 point something billion after 40 years. You've calculated double that number in 36 years. Not possible.

The S&P 500 didn't make 10%. And Trump probably paid some non-zero amount of business profits and personal income tax (much higher rate than capital gains). Oh, and I'm also pretty sure that Trump spent some money over the last 40 years. Fast food isn't free.

So ignore Trump for a minute and ask an objective 3rd party. Ask two even. Forbes or Bloomberg both estimate Trump's net worth around 4 billion. To reach that number, with a $200 million head start, you have to far exceed the market. And you have to do it consistently, over the long term. How can an ignoramus do that?

I think you may have forgotten to adjust for inflation.

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963...ump-index-fund
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...trump-s-wealth

Who says it's unquestioning?? Trump says he's rich. I checked and it turns out that other, independent firms who specialize in estimate the wealth of private businessmen agree that Trump is filthy fucking rich.

Did these independent firms also estimate his debts? There is no doubt his name is on some pretty expensive buildings on prime estate, but how much does he actually own them, how much are they leveraged, what is his net worth? We don't know do we. Bloomberg seems to estimate it's close to $3bn, which certainly isn't bad if true. Personally I'm not as convinced though that I'd base my whole world view on that.

Easily the most ignorant thing you've said in this thread. And that's saying something.

Wow, thanks! If my most ignorant view has been that running a political campaign bares little resemblance to an aptitude test or an exam, I feel I'm doing pretty well.

I know, for a fact, he owns billions of dollars of tangible assets. He's really not worried where his next steak is coming from.

See but you don't know whether his debts exceed his holdings. You do realize it's possible to own something and still be up to your eyes in debt?

It's just occurred to me that you live in a place where its entirely possible that you've never interacted with a highly successful capitalist.

Oh an ad hominem? How would that fact, even if true, change anything about what we are talking about? What would those interactions be and what's the definition of a highly successful capitalist?

Trump became president for the same reason all 44 of his predecessors did. Personal ambition and patriotism.

And what has his personal ambitions for the past decades been?

Fuck this game. You don't get to play with the definition of words.

It isn't your privilege alone, deal with it.

Racist implies hatred and animus.

This is how long it took for you to start changing definitions again.

Oxford dictionary: A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Cambrisge dictionary: someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly
Merriam-Webster: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Wikipedia: the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity

None of the definitions require hatred or animus.

Not "grumpy grandpa" stuff. That's why being labeled a racist is one of the worst things that can happen to a politician or celebrity. Weaponizing that is wrong wrong wrong.

Fuck this game. You don't get to play with the definition of words.

When those protesters carry signs demanding the removal of a politician for racist ideology, they're not being honest. They're not outraged about "grumpy grandpa" stuff. But Trump isn't guilty of anything worse. So what's with the signs??

How is it that you always know what everyone is thinking.

[BananaStand]

My point was all along to point out Trump supporters are more invested in their beliefs. If they turn out to be wrong, they may have voted for a bigoted corrupt charlatan.

There is a mountian of objective evidence to suggest that this is an infintisimally small possibility. So small that those of us who deal with realism and practicality can write it off as a complete fantasy. I'm ready anytime you want to discuss any of that objective evidence. But I understand if you don't want to because it eviscerates your position. You're completely ignorant, and you know it. You're just hopelessly trying to disguise it as fanatical agnosticism.

If Trump's opposers turn out to be wrong, they have to face the humiliation of being wrong but things are actually ok. See the difference?

They have turned out to be wrong. Do you think things are ok now?

So what is the value of his real-estate portfolio

do your own research. I've posted on this recently, or just use your google machine. Just his assets within the city of New York are worth 1.6 billion. Just in NYC

and how much debt does he and the companies have? Surely you know the exact numbers since you're so convinced.

No I don't know the exact numbers. I don't need to. I have an accounting degree, a masters in business administration, and 20 years experience in corporate finance. I can be virtually certain that he doesn't have more debt than can be serviced by his business operations. Banks check that shit before and DURING a loan term.

You were asked which parts in it showed signs of intelligence

The part where he won over an intelligent crowd that used to hate his guts.

Why are you switching the context to being about republican and democrat politicians, when we were talking about voters?

Voters don't have political affiliations?????

You may be, it just doesn't look like that to me. And no I haven't tried to debate on the issues other than point out places where your supposed titanium alloy evidences have been less than airtight.

No, you've cited situations where your ignorance makes you agnostic.

Yes, this is where our opinions differ. I don't have a deep emotional or economic investment in Trump, so I can perhaps more freely entertain all possible options, not only the ones that cement my beliefs

.
Do you think it's possible that Trump made his fortune by illegally trafficking pterodactyls?? Are you entertaining that option as well?

You refuse to think it's possible he could have gotten this far by accident

Do you even get how much money a billion dollars is??

questionable means,

I never said this is impossible, but mountains of objective evidence suggest otherwise to the point where it's practical, reasonable, and sensible to discount the possibility to the point where it's not even worth discussing, or even mentioning unless and until some credible evidence is made known.

It's clear to me that you think this stuff because you just don't understand corporate finance. Trump has 500+ companies, that means auditors are looking at his books, probably 2000+ times per year, every year, for the last half century. If Trump was up to no good, he would literally have to be the premier mastermind of the last two millennium. I guess that's possible. It's odd that you think this is a possibility while also strongly advocating the possibility that Trump is a simpleton.

I get that. Meanwhile, for an outside observer, his continuous gaffes

I don't think he commits any more gaffes than any other politician. Are you keeping score? What logical basis are you using to ignore the non-gaffes?

the accusations of meddling and obstruction

Made up by democrats. Literally. That accusation was made by Christopher Steele, who is a known partisan, was fired from the FBI for misconduct, is on record making heavily anti-trump statements, and was paid by Hillary Clinton. Why in the world do you think his accusation is credible?

, the language he uses

,
That's one of the main reasons he got elected. Do you not get that???

the accusations of pretty much everyone round him calling him an idiot

"pretty much everyone"??? There you go again with your desperate juvenile arguments. "duh, everything". PFFFFFFFFT

Everyone who's left the white house or the Trump campaign has had nothing but glowing things to say about their time serving the Commander in Chief.

I think you may have forgotten to adjust for inflation.

Inflation is not part of this equation. Again, you misunderstand finance and you're trying to get educated by vox. Big mistake. Even the vox article though admits that Trump could only get there the easy way if he didn't pay management fees, didn't pay taxes, and never withdrew a cent. That's OBVIOUSLY not possible. You can't buy buildings, planes, and super model wives that way.

So...again...it's clear that Trump has outperformed the market, significantly, and consistently.

Did these independent firms also estimate his debts?

Yes. I can't read the bloomberg article you linked because it's behind a paywall. But the headline says that they reached their assessment based on his 92 page financial disclosures, which include debt.

There is no doubt his name is on some pretty expensive buildings on prime estate, but how much does he actually own them

Either 100% or enough that he can service his debts. That's no small accomplishment.

what is his net worth? We don't know do we.

Does it matter? Do you really doubt he's a billionaire? Isn't that enough?

Bloomberg seems to estimate it's close to $3bn, which certainly isn't bad if true. Personally I'm not as convinced though that I'd base my whole world view on that.

Why do you doubt Bloomberg? Forbes says its 4 billion. Do you doubt them? How much corroboration do you actually need?

Wow, thanks! If my most ignorant view has been that running a political campaign bares little resemblance to an aptitude test or an exam, I feel I'm doing pretty well.

I'm not sure how elections work in your shithole country, but here in America you're required to answer questions, declare your policy, and demonstrate an understanding of the issues in debates. Everything you say, every position you take, every sentiment you communicate is scrutinized more than the Zapruder film. You really wouldn't equate that to an aptitude test? You think it's all smooth-talk?? ARE YOU HIGH???

See but you don't know whether his debts exceed his holdings

YES I DO!! Yet again, just because you have no idea how corporate finance works, doesn't mean that you can fill in the blanks with sensational figments of your imagination. There is no plausible way he could accumulate that much debt.

And what has his personal ambitions for the past decades been?

Success

None of the definitions require hatred or animus.

For fucks sake....go look up hatred and animus.

[CoccoBill]

There is a mountian of objective evidence to suggest that this is an infintisimally small possibility. So small that those of us who deal with realism and practicality can write it off as a complete fantasy. I'm ready anytime you want to discuss any of that objective evidence. But I understand if you don't want to because it eviscerates your position. You're completely ignorant, and you know it. You're just hopelessly trying to disguise it as fanatical agnosticism.

Let's for the sake of the argument say that I'm completely enclosed in an echo chamber, in total denial of all observable facts in the universe and overall a pretty useless human being. Now, how does this change the fact that Trump supporters have more to lose in their beliefs compared to Trump opposers? There is no mountain of objective evidence, there's just suggestive information with murky details, and a whole shitload of speculation. Yet, you're absolutely convinced that you're 100% correct and everyone even entertaining any opposing views must be idiots or brainwashed.

No I don't know the exact numbers. I don't need to. I have an accounting degree, a masters in business administration, and 20 years experience in corporate finance. I can be virtually certain that he doesn't have more debt than can be serviced by his business operations.

Wow an appeal to authority, good for you! You seem to have expanded your mind-reading skills to include corporate finance. Impressive.

Banks check that shit before and DURING a loan term.

Which is the reason no one's ever heard of credit defaults.

The part where he won over an intelligent crowd that used to hate his guts.

Look at you grasping at straws.

Voters don't have political affiliations?????

Of course they do, but that doesn't make them politicians. Stop deflecting.

No, you've cited situations where your ignorance makes you agnostic.

I'm not the one rigidly holding a position one way or the other, you can stop making it sound like that's the case already.

Do you think it's possible that Trump made his fortune by illegally trafficking pterodactyls?? Are you entertaining that option as well?

I don't think it's impossible, I just see no reason to think that's the case. If there were public records, statements, news articles or other suggestions that it might be the case, I might think it should be looked into. You clearly wouldn't since you know Trump isn't into that shit.

Do you even get how much money a billion dollars is??

I never said this is impossible, but mountains of objective evidence suggest otherwise to the point where it's practical, reasonable, and sensible to discount the possibility to the point where it's not even worth discussing, or even mentioning unless and until some credible evidence is made known.

We have come to notice that's your opinion, yes.

It's clear to me that you think this stuff because you just don't understand corporate finance. Trump has 500+ companies, that means auditors are looking at his books, probably 2000+ times per year, every year, for the last half century. If Trump was up to no good, he would literally have to be the premier mastermind of the last two millennium. I guess that's possible. It's odd that you think this is a possibility while also strongly advocating the possibility that Trump is a simpleton.

Hyperbole and false premise. Did your business school teach you that auditors look at corporate finances to find out if they're making enough profits to claim their owner is a billionaire, and call the press if they don't? Stop trolling with these inane suggestions.

I don't think he commits any more gaffes than any other politician. Are you keeping score? What logical basis are you using to ignore the non-gaffes?

I'm sure you don't. What are these non-gaffes I'm ignoring? Why are you still trying to divert this discussion to being about my opinions, which I still haven't even for the most part stated? Desperation?

Made up by democrats. Literally. That accusation was made by Christopher Steele, who is a known partisan, was fired from the FBI for misconduct, is on record making heavily anti-trump statements, and was paid by Hillary Clinton. Why in the world do you think his accusation is credible?

You think they're made up, you have absolutely no way of knowing for sure, no matter how much you claim you have a mountain of objective evidence. And stop putting words in my mouth, I have never said that. In my personal opinion, with all the other information and allegations it's worth investigating. I'm not gonna be surprised though if you think Benghazi, emailgate, pizzagate and reptilian theories are worth investigating instead, without a hint of irony.

That's one of the main reasons he got elected. Do you not get that???

Yes, like I said he is charismatic and knows how to rile up people. As you've so many times reminded us, he's a reality TV superstar who's always been famous for his demeanor. He's also goofy, aloof and a virtual late night comedy material pandora's box.

"pretty much everyone"??? There you go again with your desperate juvenile arguments. "duh, everything". PFFFFFFFFT

Everyone who's left the white house or the Trump campaign has had nothing but glowing things to say about their time serving the Commander in Chief.

Pruitt, Tillerson, Mnuchin, Priebus, Gary Cohn, McMaster, Bannon. His peers outside his administration Rupert Murdoch, Tom Barrack, those FBI agents. And of course a bit over 50% of Americans and pretty much the whole rest of the planet. I bet you'd struggle to find that many disparaging comments even about Bush jr. Obviously they're not proof nor even bananamountains of evidence, and should not be taken at face value, but immediately dismissing all of these comments with PFFFFFFFFT implies head in sand.

Inflation is not part of this equation. Again, you misunderstand finance and you're trying to get educated by vox. Big mistake. Even the vox article though admits that Trump could only get there the easy way if he didn't pay management fees, didn't pay taxes, and never withdrew a cent. That's OBVIOUSLY not possible. You can't buy buildings, planes, and super model wives that way.

Where did you get your business diploma exactly? FYI I have a business degree also, just appealing to your own authority sadly isn't enough. All of those calculations must and actually do take into account inflation, since it changes the value of currency. If you're done with your hand-waving, now that we've established that according to the very sources you deemed reliable (Bloomberg and Forbes) he would be roughly where he is now just by having invested in the S&P500, let's all wait and see how that changes your world view. Not at all? Didn't think so.

Yes. I can't read the bloomberg article you linked because it's behind a paywall. But the headline says that they reached their assessment based on his 92 page financial disclosures, which include debt.

Bloomberg estimates his net worth in 2015 was $2.9bn. They also estimate his projected worth in 2016 to be pretty much the same, had he just invested all of his money in the early 80's. This is data from the parties you asked for, laying doubt on the absolutely rock solid belief you have he's one of the greatest businessmen ever.

Either 100% or enough that he can service his debts. That's no small accomplishment.

So anything between say 100% and 0%, give or take? What makes you think he's not just renting out his brand, owning a minority share, or being up to his eyeballs in debt? I mean other than blind faith, your business degree and clairvoyance skills?

Does it matter? Do you really doubt he's a billionaire? Isn't that enough?

Why do you doubt Bloomberg? Forbes says its 4 billion. Do you doubt them? How much corroboration do you actually need?

Again trying to strawman this to be about my opinions, which I haven't stated, cute. I don't doubt Bloomberg, but they themselves are pretty open that it's just their estimation without actual proof, a notch better than a wild guess.

I'm not sure how elections work in your shithole country

Brilliant argumentation again.

Everything you say, every position you take, every sentiment you communicate is scrutinized more than the Zapruder film. You really wouldn't equate that to an aptitude test? You think it's all smooth-talk?? ARE YOU HIGH???

Do you know what aptitude tests and exams measure? It isn't the ability to appear convincing in public, or the ability to slander and ridicule your opponents, nor even empty rhetoric to fire up your base. Your campaigns nowadays seem to be more about identity politics and discrediting the opposition than about policy or substance.

YES I DO!!

No you don't.

Success

And he just now decided no more, now I'll dedicate my life for bettering the world, happily taking on all this public scrutiny, media rollercoaster, accusations, fake news etc, just cause he's such a great guy? No skepticism, even a tiny bit?

For fucks sake....go look up hatred and animus.

Yey, another game of Change The Meaning! These are my favorite.

[OngBonga]

Do you think it's possible that Trump made his fortune by illegally trafficking pterodactyls??

I don't think it's impossible

As you were...

[BananaStand]

As you were...

I honestly think he didn't know what pterodactyls are. guessing from context clues I think he assumed it meant some kind of drug.

[OngBonga]

26.3% of Americans voted for Trump

And of course a bit over 50% of Americans

Magic.

[BananaStand]

Now, how does this change the fact that Trump supporters have more to lose in their beliefs compared to Trump opposers?

This is not a fact. that's your opinion. And it's based on the erroneous and wishful premise that people like me's heads will explode if we find out some bad news about Trump. As I said, if Trump is proven to be a corrupt, treasonous, charlatan then republicans can just fall back on the Jeb Bushes, Mitt Romneys, and John McCains of the world. Those guys can say "see I told you so", and republicans will be fine.

Look at the left now. Do they seem "fine" to you??

There is no mountain of objective evidence, there's just suggestive information with murky details, and a whole shitload of speculation. Yet, you're absolutely convinced that you're 100% correct and everyone even entertaining any opposing views must be idiots or brainwashed.

That's a gross mischaracterization of my position. "absolutely convinced" is inaccurate. I'm firmly set in my position because of the facts and objective evidence that support it. if you have a different position, you must be using different facts and objective evidence. Would you like to state what those are?? Or, you're using conjecture, speculation, and partisan wishing as the basis for your position? If so, you're a fool.

Which is the reason no one's ever heard of credit defaults.

What's your point here? That defaults happen? Of course they do. Thats why banks do audits. If Trump was in default, we'd know. We would absolutely know. If a bank calls your loan and forces you into bankruptcy...your books become public knowledge. That hasn't happened for Trump....so what does that tell you about whether or not he's in default???

Look at you grasping at straws.

Look at you ignoring objective facts that don't support your argument. How convenient.

I'm not the one rigidly holding a position one way or the other, you can stop making it sound like that's the case already.

No, you're rigidly holding a position of skepticism and denigrating anyone who presumes not to be.

I don't think it's impossible,

OMFG, you do know that pterodactyls are extinct right?

Hyperbole and false premise. Did your business school teach you that auditors look at corporate finances to find out if they're making enough profits to claim their owner is a billionaire, and call the press if they don't?

It's not hyperbole or false at all. I'll bet that Trump does in fact get audited in some capacity over 2000 times per year. That's only 4 audits per company, which is completely reasonable. Lenders, Insurance agencies, and tax preparers all get to look at the books. They're there to ensure that Trump's companies are viable going concerns. If they weren't, they would call the loans, forcing bankruptcy, which would be public knowledge.

So follow me here. Of Trump's 513 companies, 4 of them filed for bankruptcy. >>> We have no public knowledge of bankruptcy regarding the other 509 firms. >>> That means, definitively, that they are NOT bankrupt. >>>> That means that they are solvent.

Isn't logic awesome??!!

I'm sure you don't. What are these non-gaffes I'm ignoring?

Let's start with the fact that he became President

You think they're made up, you have absolutely no way of knowing for sure, no matter how much you claim you have a mountain of objective evidence

I thought you said you could be persuaded by evidence. What happened to that??

. And stop putting words in my mouth, I have never said that. In my personal opinion, with all the other information and allegations it's worth investigating

Saying it's "worth investigating" is the same as saying that the allegations have credibility. You also seem to think an allegation of Trump trafficking pterodactyls is also credible. You sound like a very stable genius.

. I'm not gonna be surprised though if you think Benghazi, emailgate, pizzagate and reptilian theories are worth investigating instead, without a hint of irony.

The first two are worth investigating. Cuz...evidence. In the case of Benghazi, the evidence is four dead bodies. Email-gate is a topic for another thread, but basically you'd be ignorant to say that Hillary didn't commit a crime.

Yes, like I said he is charismatic and knows how to rile up people. As you've so many times reminded us, he's a reality TV superstar who's always been famous for his demeanor. He's also goofy, aloof and a virtual late night comedy material pandora's box.

AND HE STILL WON

Pruitt, Tillerson, Mnuchin, Priebus, Gary Cohn, McMaster, Bannon. His peers outside his administration Rupert Murdoch, Tom Barrack, those FBI agents. And of course a bit over 50% of Americans and pretty much the whole rest of the planet.

Not gonna go through that whole list, but many of those people are, and have been, staunch supporters of Trump. And you sound like a fucking idiot when you say stuff like "the whole rest of the planet".

I bet you'd struggle to find that many disparaging comments even about Bush jr

I actually wouldn't.

Where did you get your business diploma exactly? FYI I have a business degree also, just appealing to your own authority sadly isn't enough. All of those calculations must and actually do take into account inflation, since it changes the value of currency.

No fuck face. If you invested $100 in an index fund at 10%, at the end of the year you'd have $110. Period. It doesn't get adjusted for inflation. I can just see you waving your account statement in some banker's face going "where's my inflation adjustment??!!"

If you're done with your hand-waving, now that we've established that according to the very sources you deemed reliable (Bloomberg and Forbes) he would be roughly where he is now just by having invested in the S&P500, let's all wait and see how that changes your world view. Not at all? Didn't think so.

Wrong....he'd be roughly where he is if you assume A) He paid no fees, B) He never withdrew a cent and C) deferred all of his taxes. The Vox article states this CLEARLY. For him to accumulate even the most conservative estimates of his net worth, and still eat, he'd have to significantly outperform the market. Furthermore, we know he DIDN'T invest in the S&P 500. He invested in real estate, where sometimes the returns are higher, but sometimes they are very much not higher. In fact, real estate over the last century has only averaged 1% per year. A TENTH of the S&P 500.

So if he's worth that much....he got there the hard way. What does that tell you about his skills??

Bloomberg estimates his net worth in 2015 was $2.9bn.

I think it's funny that you acknowledge the figure as his "net" worth, while simultaneously asking "I wonder if that could be offset by debt?". Hilarious. Were you absent the day they taught the definition of the word "net" in business school?

What makes you think he's not ..... up to his eyeballs in debt?

I looked up the word "net" in the dictionary.

Do you know what aptitude tests and exams measure? It isn't the ability to appear convincing in public, or the ability to slander and ridicule your opponents, nor even empty rhetoric to fire up your base.

This sounds like the whiny bitching of someone who's disappointed with the election results. You're either being intentionally stubborn, or your hopelessly ignorant about what it actually takes to win a national election for the office of President. Either way, I'm done discussing this point with you.

Your campaigns Democrats nowadays seem to be more about identity politics and discrediting the opposition than about policy or substance, and that's why they lost

Fixed your post, corrections in bold.

And he just now decided no more, now I'll dedicate my life for bettering the world, happily taking on all this public scrutiny, media rollercoaster, accusations, fake news etc, just cause he's such a great guy? No skepticism, even a tiny bit?

Not 'just cause he's a great guy'. Personal ambition and patriotism. I'm sure I've said that multiple times, but you've yet again moved the goalpost just to be a cunt.

[CoccoBill]

This is not a fact. that's your opinion. And it's based on the erroneous and wishful premise that people like me's heads will explode if we find out some bad news about Trump. As I said, if Trump is proven to be a corrupt, treasonous, charlatan then republicans can just fall back on the Jeb Bushes, Mitt Romneys, and John McCains of the world. Those guys can say "see I told you so", and republicans will be fine.

If Trump voters are proven wrong, have they been duped and done themselves and their country a huge disservice? Does this apply to those who didn't vote for him? Are you deliberately trolling and refusing to connect the dots?

What's your point here? That defaults happen? Of course they do. Thats why banks do audits. If Trump was in default, we'd know. We would absolutely know. If a bank calls your loan and forces you into bankruptcy...your books become public knowledge. That hasn't happened for Trump....so what does that tell you about whether or not he's in default???

I keep forgetting everything needs to be spelled out for you. Defaults happen despite banks monitoring and doing audits. Therefore audits of Trump's companies do not guarantee that they'll never run into financial trouble, or that they haven't or that they're making yuuge profits, Mr Business Degree.

No, you're rigidly holding a position of skepticism and denigrating anyone who presumes not to be.

cynicism
Without solid verifiable facts skepticism is the only reasonable position.

So follow me here. Of Trump's 513 companies, 4 of them filed for bankruptcy. >>> We have no public knowledge of bankruptcy regarding the other 509 firms. >>> That means, definitively, that they are NOT bankrupt. >>>> That means that they are solvent.

Isn't logic awesome??!!

It is. Too bad it doesn't allow for a leap from solvent >>> yuugely profitable.

Let's start with the fact that he became President

Right, so now I'm not aware that he was elected? That because he got elected, he must be smart, competent, successful, not corrupt, not prejudiced, smell good and one of the greatest cellists of all time?

I thought you said you could be persuaded by evidence. What happened to that??

Maybe I've seen as much evidence from you as you've probably seen from me, since there isn't any. Yet only one of us is convinced, which was the whole point of this whole conversation. Now call me names bad boy.


Saying it's "worth investigating" is the same as saying that the allegations have credibility. You also seem to think an allegation of Trump trafficking pterodactyls is also credible. You sound like a very stable genius.

AND HE STILL WON

Despite, or exactly because of?

No fuck face. If you invested $100 in an index fund at 10%, at the end of the year you'd have $110. Period. It doesn't get adjusted for inflation. I can just see you waving your account statement in some banker's face going "where's my inflation adjustment??!!"

Rawwr. You're really fucking bad in this considering you supposedly have a degree. Yes you'll have $110, but it won't be worth $110 in last year's currency value. It'll likely be a per cent or two less. We could leave out the inflation if we were just calculating dollars on his bank account, but we're not doing that. We're comparing the relative appreciation of his real estate and other businesses to stock market index valuations. $100 of 1980 dollars had the same purchasing power as £318.60 2018 dollars.

Wrong....he'd be roughly where he is if you assume A) He paid no fees, B) He never withdrew a cent and C) deferred all of his taxes. The Vox article states this CLEARLY. For him to accumulate even the most conservative estimates of his net worth, he'd have to significantly outperform the market. Furthermore, we know he DIDN'T invest in the S&P 500. He invested in real estate, where sometimes the returns are higher, but sometimes they are very much not higher. In fact, real estate over the last century has only averaged 1% per year. A TENTH of the S&P 500.

Let me explain. This whole thing is to show a person starting with millions can earn billions, just by investing in the index. Any fucking idiot is able to do that. You're now suggesting, that he must be a brilliant businessman since he's beating that? As per the article: "That's not really impressive. Worse, it suggests that his success is almost entirely the result of having inherited money from his father. His own actions might have even cost him money." Now, that may or may not be true, but you gotta have your head really deep up your ass to unequivocally think he must be a business mastermind.

I think it's funny that you acknowledge the figure as his "net" worth, while simultaneously asking "I wonder if that could be offset by debt?". Hilarious. Were you absent the day they taught the definition of the word "net" in business school?

I don't "accept" it as irrefutable fact, I accept it as Bloomberg's estimate. We don't know the truth.

I looked up the word "net" in the dictionary.

Did it say it means Trump's hands are massive?

This sounds like the whiny bitching of someone who's disappointed with the election results. You're either being intentionally stubborn, or your hopelessly ignorant about what it actually takes to win a national election for the office of President. Either way, I'm done discussing this point with you.

I think most of all it takes lots of campaign donations.

Fixed your post, corrections in bold.

Right, because no one ever voted a republican because they happen to be male, or white, or evangelical christian, or libertarian, or...

Not 'just cause he's a great guy'. Personal ambition and patriotism. I'm sure I've said that multiple times, but you've yet again moved the goalpost just to be a cunt.

So he wouldn't endure the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President for financial success, but he's definitely doing it for personal ambition and patriotism.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You should be applauded for knowing how to toe the line while staying on the unrepproachable side of it.

No fuck face.

This is pushing it.